September 13, 2006

Novak: Armitage Interviews "Obscured" The Truth

"When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week he was my source
three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee,
the former deputy secretary of state's interviews obscured what he
really did," Bob Novak claims in a column set for Thursday release.

Novak, attempting to set the record straight, writes: "First,
Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had
heard and that he 'thought' might be so. Rather, he identified to me
the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she
recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph
Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle
chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially
suited for my column."

Novak slams Armitage for holding back all this time.

Armitage's silence for "two and one-half years caused intense pain for
his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress
to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source," Novak explains.

"When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor
Patrick Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silent three
months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and
Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30. Armitage's tardy self-disclosure
is tainted because it is deceptive."

For what it's worth, we believe Drudge has access to this because we believe that wire-service columns go out early so the subscribing newspapers can set them up. For example, Novak's July 14, 2003 column "outing" Ms. Plame went on the wire on July 11.

So, where are we? Well, various commentators, including myself, noted that Armitage had not exactly been forthcoming about his chat with Woodward or much else in this case, so there was reason to take his story with a grain of salt. This was Armitage's account as described by CBS:

"At the end of a wide-ranging interview he asked me, 'Why did the CIA
send Ambassador (Wilson) to Africa?' I said I didn't know, but that she
worked out at the agency," Armitage says.

Armitage says he told Novak because it was "just an offhand
question." "I didn't put any big import on it and I just answered and
it was the last question we had," he says.

Armitage adds that while the document was classified, "it doesn't mean that every sentence in the document is classified.

"I had never seen a covered agent's name in any memo in, I think, 28 years of government," he says.

He adds that he thinks he referred to Wilson's wife as such, or
possibly as "Mrs. Wilson." He never referred to her as Valerie Plame,
he adds.

"I didn't know the woman's name was Plame. I didn't know she was an operative," he says.

Skeptics noted that what Armitage claims he told Novak is much less than what Novak reported - for example, Armitage does not even admit telling Novak that Ms. Plame was involved in arranging Ambassador Wilson's trip to Niger. Where, people wondered, did Novak learn that - some undisclosed third source, from a chattier Karl Rove than either Novak or Rove described, or what?

On the other hand, Novak had an odd encounter on the sidewalk on July 8 with a stranger who tuned out to be a friend of Joe Wilson's. The two struck up a conversation, the stranger asked about Niger and Wilson, and Novak said (per Joe Wilson's book), "Wilson's an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA. She's a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him."

OK, that was on July 8; per other reporting, Rove and Novak exchanged phone calls on the 8th but only talked on the 9th. So how did Novak know on the 8th that Ms. Plame was a WMD specialist who sent her hubby to Niger? *IF* Armitage really only mentioned that "she
worked out at the agency", Novak would have to be psychic (in which case his vast powers have been underutilized over the many years) or he would have to have another mystery source.

On the other hand, if Armitage told Novak that Ms. Plame worked in the Directorate of Operations and was involved in sending her hubby, as Novak asserts, then the question of what did Novak know and how did he know it is nearly answered.

However... how did Armitage know that Ms. Plame was in the Directorate of Operations, which is the branch that has the covert operatives (although not everyone there is covert)?

My guess is that someone does have a mystery source here. I would be surprised if Bob Novak had not called one of his CIA contacts to probe the Wilson story - if everyone was telling him that Wilson was sent by the CIA, why wouldn't he call over there?

On the other hand, I don't mind the idea that Armitage, who has been in Washington a long time, has some long-time friends at the CIA and had a background chat with one of them. Senior people were asking about the Wilson trip and Armitage's underlings were telling him the INR was not involved - is it utterly implausible that Armitage called a CIA buddy of his to double-check?

Well - Novak says Armitage told him Ms. Plame was in the DO, even though Armitage could not have learned that from the INR memo. I suppose that calling someone in the DO an "operative" would be consistent with Novak's usage in his famous column:

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.

Compounding the mystery - On July 8 Andrea Mitchell claimed that CIA sources told her that the Wilson trip was arranged by "some of the covert operatives
in the CIA at a very low level".

And on July 6, Walter Pincus and Richard Leiby of the WaPo reported that

A senior administration official said yesterday that Wilson's mission originated within the CIA's clandestine service...

I would think that "the clandestine service" meant Directorate of Operations rather than WINPAC. The point is, the notion that the Wilson trip was arranged by the DO was not, apparently, a big secret on July 8, and the use of the word "operative" was not unique to Novak.

My Big Finish - I have never thought the Armitage story was complete and accurate, so the Novak column does not shock me. And I DO NOT think Novak is coming forward simply to protect Rove or someone else - Fitzgerald has the testimony he has and this column won't change that; in the court of public opinion this case has been dismissed due to lack of interest.

I think Novak is coming forwards because he is peeved with Armitage and thinks he is being a weasel on this story. (And when the Prince of Darkness questions your integrity, that is getting down there...)

"NAME" GAME ASIDE: *IF* Armitage called a CIA crony that could explain where the name "Plame" came from - she is referred to as "Valerie Wilson" in the INR memo but someone who knew her before she was married might well remember her as "Plame". That said, in his interview Armitage denied using the "Plame" name and Novak does not contradict him (in this Drudge excerpt, anyway).

Novak claimed he relied on "Who's Who when he explained this last summer but that explanation has not really satisfied people.

Finally, Judy Miller had "Valerie Flame" in her notebook, probably from another source:

Mr. Fitzgerald asked me about another entry in my notebook, where I
had written the words ''Valerie Flame,'' clearly a reference to Ms.
Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald wanted to know whether the entry was based on my
conversations with Mr. Libby. I said I didn't think so. I said I
believed the information came from another source, whom I could not
recall.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked if I could recall discussing the
Wilson-Plame connection with other sources. I said I had, though I
could not recall any by name or when those conversations occurred.

I am confident there are sources out there that Fitzgerald never identified. Since he was focusing his search on the White House, that is not surprising - Fitzgerald did seem to be investigating "Did the White House conspire to out Ms. Plame?", rather than "Who outed Ms. Plame?"

Armitage, in an interview yesterday, said he stood by his account and disputed Novak's.

...In confirming his role, Armitage said his disclosure to Novak was done
in an offhand way. At the end of their conversation, "Novak asked me,
'Hey, why did the CIA send Mr. Wilson to Niger?' I said, 'I don't know,
but I think his wife worked out there,' " Armitage said.

...But Novak says in today's column that Armitage's statements "obscured
what he really did" and that "Armitage did not, as he now indicates,
merely pass on something he had heard and that he 'thought' might be
so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson
worked and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her
husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson."

And now the comedy bit:

Armitage said he could not recall whether he identified the CIA division where Wilson's wife worked.

He can't remember, but Novak is wrong!

More fun:

Lobbyist Ken Duberstein, a friend of Armitage who helped arrange
Novak's meeting with him, said yesterday that Armitage's account
precisely matches what Armitage told him in October 2003.

Matches precisely! And Mr. Duberstein is certain about this three-year old conversation because he has notes and a tape-recording! Please, I'm begging now - give me a break.

Libby's brief in support of dismissal on the question of the appointment was one of the best argued briefs I've ever seen. It was a mistake not to have granted it.

I'm curious -- my suggestion about the AG appealing the Appointments Clause ruling was basically a cathy-as-loose-canon idea, but, seriously, do they have standing? The argument is, more or less, that Fitzgerald is posing as a properly-appointed and properly-supervised special prosecutor. Can the justice department petition to have all of his special-prosecutor work product thrown out of any US court? (Obviously not his Chicago work product -- he was clearly properly appointed and confirmed there.)

Clearly Libby has standing to ask for the stuff related to him to be dismissed, but isn't it the Attorney General who is the injured party by the deriliction of duty of his predecessor? (Comey in his role as acting AG is Gonzalez's predecessor in this matter. It is Comey who created the unconstitutional office and then appointed Fitzgerald to it.)

Cathyf, I always thought it odd that the DoJ allowed Fitz to make this argument without even filing an amicus brief.It is an arcane question about the DoJ's position now. Certainly he can--and should be fired and the case dismissed. If it is that authority will probably be of less authority because it was not taken to the Ct of Appeals and because the underlying case was dismissed.
Once the case is dismissed, I do not see how DoJ can appeal it.

I was referring to AJacksonian's long post about how to refer to names of covert status in memos;

It's fairly obvious she was referred to that way because the referrer didn't know she was covert. And, in fact, that she was acting in a decidedly un-covert way--hosting an interagency meeting--when she did something memorable enough to be committed to the INR guy (Rohn's) meeting notes. If there was a security violation (and I contend there was), it was Plame's.

And, in fact, that she was acting in a decidedly un-covert way--hosting an interagency meeting--when she did something memorable enough to be committed to the INR guy (Rohn's) meeting notes.

Just a quick note: Rohn, the guy who wrote up the notes, was not at any moment present at that meeting when Plame was, according to what he told Isikoff and Corn for Hubris. So whatever Plame did, it was not memorable to Rohn, at least in the ordinary way we use that term. And it certainly appears that she did not host an interagency meeting. Here's Hubris p. 94:

Rohn said that he had arrived after it had started and "really didn't understand who had done the organizationn work for the meeting." he explained that he had used the word "apparently" in his memo because he hadn't been sure who had actually initiated the gathering. Valerie Wilson was not there when he entered. "I have never met her," he said. Rohn, who wrote the only known account of the meeting, acknowledged that his memo may have created a misimpression about Valerie Wilson's involvement.

Did Jeff explain how he was able to obtain the advance (not available to the general public one yet) edition to Novak's column, or did I miss something?

Well, in addition to my access to the inner workings of Fitzgerald's investigation, Novak also sends me his forthcoming columns for proofreading from time to time. It's an odd mix.

No, actually, it was published by the Chicago Sun-Times, which I take to be Novak's home paper, and I got the link from another commenter at emptywheel's. But that's so pedestrian, I'm sorry to disappoint you.

Is it really being "fired" from the special prosecutor "position" if the position never existed because it is unconstitutional?

If Fitzgerald is not acting as a duly-appointed officer of the United States (as defined by the constitution) then none of his motions are legal filings. Like my 12-year-old knows how to run a computer and could print out some papers and ride his bike down to the courthouse, but he's not a real prosecutor and so he can't get his annoying little sister indicted for being annoying. As far as this case, it looks to me like Fitzgerald had about as much right to be making court filings as my kid does...

Rohn, who wrote the only known account of the meeting, acknowledged that his memo may have created a misimpression about Valerie Wilson's involvement.

And you give me grief for quibbling? It's undisputed Plame showed up at the meeting--her version (SSCI):

The former ambassador’s wife told Committee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes.

Whether from personal observation or discussion with meeting members, Rohn's subsequent attempt to capture the essence looks to be serviceable. And whatever Plame did, it certainly doesn't square with the concept of someone for whom the "United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States."

"The disclosure of Mrs. Wilson’s covert identity makes her and her family a target for those persons and groups who bear hostility to the United States and/or its intelligence officers."

The disclosure by Joe Wilson that a former US ambassador would take part in a CIA operation puts members of the diplomatic corps, active and retired, in the cross hairs of foreign intelligence services, friend and foe, around the world.

cathyf, logically you are right of course, but the AG having acquiesced so long in this arrangement even when Fitz was arguing that his appointment was constitutional, the AG may well have lost the opportunity at this last date to raise that.

He had told me unequivocally that Mrs. Wilson worked in the CIA’s Counter-Proliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband’s mission.

I'm prolly taking parsing to a new level here, but is this "she had suggested her husband’s [the] mission. and the subsquency "offered up" the perfect person in her eyes to do the "mission" -- which track with her hasty "memo" that notes he has "good french contacts" to boot?

the idea of the "mission" was hers and the person to do the mission was Husband...if so, no wonder so many viewed it as a nepotistic junket in the community, especially when so many were saying "dumb idea"

If so wonder how hard she pushed her grand "mission" idea and why, cause the de-brief report looks nothing like the Op-Ed

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, have signaled to the White House that they intend to step down even if President Bush is reelected, setting the stage for a substantial reshaping of the administration's national security team that has remained unchanged through the September 2001 terrorist attacks, two wars and numerous other crises. [/quote]http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16856-2003Aug3?language=printer

It is probably pure coincidence but in July 2004 Armitage went on the Bd of CSIS, overlapping Mary O McCarthy's time at CSIS. (In 2004 she made a political contribution listing that as her place of employment ). He's still on that Bd.

From today's WaPo article above:
[quote]Armitage, in reply, said his disclosure to Novak was inadvertent and noted that Novak himself described it as "offhand" in an Oct. 1, 2003, column. Armitage said he could not recall whether he identified the CIA division where Wilson's wife worked. He added that he rejects any suggestion he was deliberately trying to plant the information, explaining that "I had no reason to wish him [Wilson] any ill" and that Wilson "was simply verifying what had already been reported [about Iraq] through State channels."

Lobbyist Ken Duberstein, a friend of Armitage who helped arrange Novak's meeting with him, said yesterday that Armitage's account precisely matches what Armitage told him in October 2003.[/quote]

This makes another witness whose memory wasn't perfect...but only one man was charged for not being autistic.

Lobbyist Ken Duberstein, a friend of Armitage who helped arrange Novak's meeting with him, said yesterday that Armitage's account precisely matches what Armitage told him in October 2003.

Maybe Duberstein is telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Maybe Novak is too. Which would leave Armitage covering his butt from the get go. Novak was not someone he would care if he burned.

Something that seems surprising to me is that Novak gives date of the Armitage meeting as July 8, 2003 -- which is the same day Novak talked with Wilson's friend. Not only that, but according to Novak, he met with Armitage in the afternoon, while according to Wilson, Novak talked to Wilson's friend "late in the afternoon." I can't offer any theories other than coincidence for the timing, but what are the odds of that happening?

If one of Armitage's motives was to 'piss on' Tenet as someone, I think correctly, suggested, this may explain why Tenet signed the referral. He wanted to find out who was doing the pissing. He may have even suspected it was Armitage

A little Devil's advocate here- what if Armitage was a "whistleblower" and it was one or both of the Wilson's he wanted exposed but then the story became the WH conspiracy instead of digging into Joe and Val's stuff? I know he has "apologized' to them but....

I think that this piece screams of being sourced by the Plames, but they were not alone. I think Fulton Armstrong may have also been a source. And it makes sense. Both Wilson and Armstrong were heavily promoted by CIP in their attacks on the Bush administration. Here are my reasons:

1)One of the complaints that Bolton had about Armstrong was that he was a notorious leaker.

2) As Alan Foley stated, he was rabidly defending the position that there was no Niger/Iraq connection, wrote a memo stating as much (even though he was the NIO LA) and per Foley, ignored the evidence of other analysts.

3)As we now know, it was a lie. Joe did find evidence of attempts to buy uranium, the reports were not crazy. (By the way, check out the mirrored language of Val in the SSIC report and Foley in the Bolton hearings where he states that Armstrong refered to the reports as just crazy)

I think what we see here is what we've been speculating about for months-- rogue CIA agents attempting a coup with the help of radical left think tanks (CIP). Wilson was involved with the CIP people long before the Kristoff article, and before he became involved with the Kerry campaign--as was Fulton Armstrong.

And don't forget Ms. "a cold room and the Red Hot Chili Peppers=torture" Priest- Goodfellow if married to CIP's ex. director William Goodfellow.

verner, doesn't this sound like a concerted effort - to destroy Bolton, prevent confirmation of Bolton, and destroy the Bush adm's ability to run day to day operations and fight the war against terrorism, and vote Bush out of the office? They were looking at prestigious jobs if Kerry won.

Well, looks like they were almost 100 percent successful. They prevented the confirmation of Bolton, leading to a temporary position and weakened the Bush adm. But they failed to vote Bush out of the office.

When Bush made that speech the day after the election, bet he knew far more what was going on than many of us did. What was that one statement he made, "paying capital gains"? (same as JFK said years ago).

The disclosure of Mrs. Wilson’s covert identity makes her and her family a target for those persons and groups who bear hostility to the United States and/or its intelligence officers.

Well, that would explain why, after this nefarious disclosure, the Wilson's "went dark" to avoid the immense peril to which they had been exposed. Now we can all understand the "radio silence" that Joe observed in order to protect himself and his family from these dangers.

Bob, the moonbats are quite misinformed. If anyone needs to apologise to Ma Richards, it's Bob Shrum. The accusations of AR's cocaine use and abuse came from...drumroll please...her democrat opponant when Shrum was running his campaign in the primary.

Kind of like they love to forget that Al Gore brought us Willie Horton.

Jeff may think that Novak is trying to save his reputation, but it is probably more likely that he is trying to backup his grand jury testimony. If the Armitage story and Novak's grand jury testimony are this different, Fitz must be scratching his head (or something else).

Meanwhile, Novak clearly makes it look as though Armitage was trying to put out this story. So why ? The most likely story is that State wanted to make it clear that the Joe Wilson African adventure was a CIA and not State driven operation. The unanswered question is obviously .. did Armitage do this on his own or are there more folks up and down the State food chain involved (i.e. Powell, Grossman, Duberstein, et al) ?

If only the Wilsons or Plames had gone dark-but alas we will never get that lucky. Correspondents Dinner, Vanity Fair article, washington parties-those Plames are regular wallflowers. My advice,stay in California where this kind of nutty behavior is more commonplace. Why not audition for a spy drama -like say "Vanished"- then we all would win.

Yep and that is the thing that just blew my mind from the time I watched ole Joe sitting daily on Hardball and making the rounds. I tell you....he made Richard Clarke's tour look puny (speaking as the MSM/DNC book/movie tour unofficial critic).

The most likely story is that State wanted to make it clear that the Joe Wilson African adventure was a CIA and not State driven operation. The unanswered question is obviously .. did Armitage do this on his own or are there more folks up and down the State food chain involved (i.e. Powell, Grossman, Duberstein, et al) ?

Think I can agree with this motivation(but only today...) because this could all have been about Armitage trying to make Powell look good. Guess we found the 'quagmire'.

OT--I hit the Bob@5:50 link about Ann Richards. Absolute legal labeling: moonbat logic. Nuts and they do her no favor. I really liked Richards but happened to like Bush better. I can still quote her 'Pooooor George' speech and she was a very funny lady. I watched her during the Gore/Bush campaign trying to warn her fellow Dems. She kept telling them that they were underestimating this guy. Don't think she could ever make them listen. I have grown to throughly dislike the Democrats of today but I can't help but smile when I think of Richards.

Not sure that's supportable (it could be someone else who'd read the report). Besides, the later references in the article appears to be to the same person, and two of them have this obvious problem for the Plame interpretation:

The message contained the names of people to whom the source spoke, said the senior CIA official.

It wasn't until February 2003 that the CIA obtained the original Iraq-Niger documents on which the uranium story was based, he said. [emphasis added]

So if Valerie Plame shows up in a hugh public event and her status was assumed to be covert, then she committed a security violation as well?

She commits a security violation any time she acknowledges her intelligence relationship to the U.S. to anyone not cleared for (and having a need-to-know about) her covert status.

More interesting is the three SAOs who admitted CIA reservations about the Niger story, despite Rice unconvincingly pleading ignorance.

Those "CIA reservations" claims were a lot more convincing before the relevant parts of various intelligence estimates were made public. Now that we know the CIA's main report said, for example: "Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" in October, 2002; the whole "we warned you" claims from CIA about a March, 2002 report fall a little flat.

Try Pilar and Armstrong or any of the other drips who Kerry works with..see if they fit. Today in a letter to the WSJ he accuses the Administration of reckless behavior citing Pilar, Drumheller and our old favorite, Larry Johnson.

The frontpage article I cited above shows we are now heading into this year's sequel of Bush Lied, starring essentially the same cast of characters.

This time the Reps do not have an operational majority on the critical Senate intel committee and Hagel hired a Kerry campaigner as his staff guy. If you thought they twisted the facts in the opening of the series, wait till you see the sequel.

--- He added that he rejects any suggestion he was deliberately trying to plant the information, explaining that "I had no reason to wish him [Wilson] any ill" and that Wilson "was simply verifying what had already been reported [about Iraq] through State channels."---

Well that's interesting...Army seems to acknowledge that he was

A - familiar with Wilson, the person, at the time (as in not just gleaned from the INR as some guy named WIlson)

and

B - He seems to have delighted in what Wilson was engaged in, at the time, and doesn't seem vexed that Wilson's own de-briefer reports conflicts with what WIlson was doing

If Kerry insists on hanging with this collection of former CIA losers so be it. His plot with them and the Wilsons to bring down the Bush presidency failed miserably. Nice try John but no cigar. I take particular pride in coming from the state {Ohio} who gave Kerry his walking papers. Duck hunting indeed! He thought we were a bunch of Ohio rubes who couldn't spot his insincerity and false behavior. We are smarter than he thinks. Are you listening Howard Dean?

Thanks for the FPM link Clarice. If you look, Landay was one of the leaders in the so-called exposure of the INC and Chalabi. I would say that he is pretty much on the anti-Bush side of the fence. I don't have Lex-Nex, but wonder if he did any reportage on Bolton and the Cuba flap--that would indicate an inside link with Armstrong.

As for the senior administration officials--look to the DOS. They, along with Val's chums (and note, not every analyst in the agency thought the reports were crazy...) were the parties pushing the hardest to discredit the Niger info.

“I would say the same thing,” he says. “If I were lucky enough to do it again, I’m going to make sure we’re campaigning in way more states.”

A far cry from what he said in 2003. He didn't need the south to win. To which I said, good thing, since you aren't going to get the south, you yellow bellied, sap sucking, egotistical...Yankee!!! ::grin::

As long as the Lebanese people become proactive against Nasrallah, Israel wins. Looks like they are slowly becoming proactive. Mainly because they saw Nasrallah inciting a war withOUT their involvement. Nasrallah was NOT their president nor dictator. Apparently, he's still hiding in undisclosed places.

Clarice, I'm not looking forward to another sequel but can see it become very, very nasty and it's going to be up to conservative bloggers to increase the reportings challenging their comments.

Can Relate Clarice. And you are so right. The main criticism I have of the Bush Administration is that they have been too lamb-like in their push-back. Somebody needs to be assigned the job of officially putting the truth to the democrat lies.

David Limbaugh up against Sid Vicious Blumenthal on Fox. What a mismatch! Now Sid is quoting the SSIC report...geez. Read the Weekly Standard you jerk! The report is a pile of poop. David--pointing out how the facts were cherry-picked, and Roberts' dissenting report. Rush didn't get all of the brains in that family.

After Kerry's disgraceful Winter Soldier episode and his Congressional testimony, does anyone doubt that Kerry is perfectly capable of formulating the most evil of plots to get his own way and advance his own causes? This is a plot. A plot hatched in the proverbial smoke-filled back room somewhere by Kerry and his anti-war, cowardly minions. It took advantage of some willing participants, although I'm not sure that those used were entirely aware of just how they were being used or who was pulling the strings. With his "inside" people at State and the VIPS cabal at CIA, it was only a few steps to getting the WH/OVP ensared in the trap. The media then took the ball and did the rest.

I don't give Colin Powell a pass either. I was very high on him back then, so it isn't easy for me to have such a change of opinion about him now. Everything he is doing now, however, is really bringing out his true colors. I just read this morning that he is coming out against the President on the tribunals issue.

Red State this morning is calling for both Armitage and Fitzgerald to be hauled in front of a new Grand Jury. There is no getting around that Armitage should have gone immediately to the President in October. In fact, if Novak's memory is accurate, Armitage's claim he didn't know he was the leaker until Novak's 2nd article is totally bogus. Unlike some here, I think Novak is a long time, like decades long, respected Washington columnist. I think he is an honorable man, unlike many of the other players in this farce.

sara:
Hope you are feeling better. I concur with your post and would only add that Colin Powell has had an inflated image of himself for quite awhile now. When crunch time came with his job on the line President Bush made the right decision not allowing Powell to dictate the terms in which he would stay. He probably made that announcement about leaving with Armitage before he informed Bush just to get the media coverage. At this point his star is fading though he still is an excellent public speaker.

"The main criticism I have of the Bush Administration is that they have been too lamb-like in their push-back."

Verner,

I really disagree with that. In the first place because it is not the President's job to respond or have his administration respond in a petty manner to petty people - petty response simply draws more attacks. In the second place, I prefer a "where are they now?" retrospective look at the players in this - and at the reputations of their press pimps.

Rick, We'll have to wait and see. The numbers look better, but they're not there yet. If the repubs lose the house--a real blow to the war against islamofascism IMHO-- I think we can blame it on the "Bush Lied" meme, and the fact that the administration has been extremely poor in communicating the real reasons we are at war in Iraq to the American people. And if not for the blogsphere, he'd be in much worse shape than he is now.

He's always had a hostile press to deal with, and while things are getting better (thanks in large part to Tony Snow I think) he still has a long way to go.

I'm soooooo dissappointed with Colin Powell in this whole stinking affair. I still believe in the Boy Scouts, still believe in Duty, Honor, Country.

I know the Beltway lives in its own little world and its politics and all that but Mr. Powell knew the truth and knew that innocent men were being slimed and slandered and lives were being ruined by the MSM and Mr. Powell could not find enough honor in himself as a man to come forward.

I am sorry to have to include Colin Powell with the likes of Wesley Clark, John Kerry, and John Murtha, who would not recognize honor if it ran them down in the road.

I heart Rick and almost always agree with him, but not on this. Perhaps the President should stay as much above the fray as possible, but his relevant Cabinet members ought to be smacking this dreck up as fast as it rears its head and if they cannot get the media to cover it honestly, they should do it in Op Eds and by mobilizing the alternate media with briefings and details.

The other problem is that the Repubs did understand being a majority until the Dems almost beat them to death. McCain has kept Bush's numbers down. Add such as Specter/NSA, Graham/torture and Collins/Katrina. Then look what Hagel and Snowe just did on that horrible backstabbing. All they need is to finish him and us off with immigration. Duh....If Bush goes down.....they all go down. Yep.....my disgust knows no bounds.

Right now the same 2 DNC attack professional journos are beating up on Tony about torture. One of course is David Gregory and don't know that CBS guy. Only know he out Gregored Gregory the other day and after it again. So let me give a great big thanks to McCain, Graham and even include Warner, for making it all possible.

A mob of leftist misfits grandiosely calling itself the "International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration" has found President Bush guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The "commission" took place as part of a 17-day moonbat fest on the National Mall. Witnesses called before it include such notable kooks as Janis Karpinski, Ray McGovern, and Scott Ritter.

The adjudicators found W guilty on 20 counts, which boil down to five crimes against humanity:

1. Deposing Saddam Hussein.
2. Authorizing "torture" of pampered captured terrorists.
3. Altering the weather.
4. Promoting sexual abstinence.
5. Failing to do the job of local and state government in New Orleans after Katrina.

I know that David Gregory person outweighs me by about 100 lbs., but I swear if I was in the WH press room right now, I could take him.

Idiot! The language is so vague in the Geneva Convention that the Bush hating skag from Human Rights Watch claimed that putting Zubeydah (sp) in a cold room and making him listen to the Red Hot Chili Peppers constituted TORTURE. DUH.

Jesus Christ. Zell Miller was right. These fools want us to fight the enemy with spit balls and Miss Manners. And McCain should know better.

The relevant department head and Secretary were Tenet and Powell. Rumsfeld has had a relatively combative relationship with the Mediacrat idiots and has never given an inch regarding the crap reporting out of Iraq. Do Americans in general consider Rumsfeld as authoritative regarding the situation or do they listen to the seditionists?

The Mediacrats are dying. Dying very ugly, but dying nevertheless. Awarding them attention simply prolongs the agony. Not a bad thing, in itself, but not particularly helpful, either.

Positing a potential Mediacrat win this year requires identification of districts where "one more push" in GOTV efforts would put the Mediacrats over the top. There are not fifteen districts where that is possible, there never have been and buying Mediacrat hype on electoral potential while recognizing what liars they are in all other areas seems a bit strange.

There are ten Rep districts that could possibly change hands and five Dem districts in the same condition. A strong Presidential reaction to press pustules would have no bearing on the districts in play and would be contrary to his actions in restoring a bit of dignity to the office which he holds.

Rick:
I agree getting down in the muck with petty people only gets you fleas. I think his communication shop should step up. More officials should go on Fox News and the Sunday shows and go toe to toe on Hannity with these blowhards. Ask the dems what their detailed plan is-they consistently NEVER answer this question.

Heck, ask the Dems to promise that if elected they will repeal the Patriot Act, stop the NSA and banking surveillance programs , close Gitmo and prosecute only those terrorists who were read their Miranda rights..

And, in light of Kerry's (Walter Mitty )"kick ass" promise, let's start a letter writing campaign to Russert reminding him that he let Kerry skate on his twice given promise to publicly release ALL his military records.

"If one of Armitage's motives was to 'piss on' Tenet as someone, I think correctly, suggested, this may explain why Tenet signed the referral. He wanted to find out who was doing the pissing. He may have even suspected it was Armitage."

It also explains why he might have exaggerated the importance of the leak. He was at the White House every day and must have known that they were scratching their heads over Wilson -- and asking him about it. Doesn't Condi Rice's language about folks in the bowels of the C.I.A. sound like the kind of description she might have gotten from Tenet?

While it's possible there was no love lost between Tenet and the (interfering)Vice President, he had to have gone nuts when he found out what Plame's little group had been up to -- holding meetings with State, sending Joe on missions, not just sans confidentiality agreements, but also sans documentation. It must have been like discovering a State Dept. mole in his own operation, and it must have been embarassing as hell to boot. (Wish I could recall all the different timelines, like Val's forced leave, Tenet's retirement etc. offhand).

What incentive could a pol like Tenet have to compromise the White House? I don't think even Kerry would reward that kind of disloyalty in a DCI, a position that was headed for the dustbin anyway. The referral only makes sense if it was aimed either at State or at operatives in his own department (Let DoJ handle the purge?).

JMH: I think we're thinking along the same lines. I think Tenet intended to hit State (Armitage and Powell) and Libby got nicked in the crossfire. Tenet could have never anticipated Fitz getting so far off track. I doubt he thought there would be any indictments, just a lot of embarrassment. And I'm sure there is no love lost between Tenet and the Wilsons--indeed, I would be madder at Plame than anyone else if I were Tenet.

Yes, that's the only way I can really make sense of his goosing up the investigation. I doubt he even expected the appointment of a Special Prosecutor. I'm working on another idea about Val & Joe too, over in the "I Don't Remember" thread.

You know, I never even realized that Novak's column was basically a free for all within the news media on July 11th... In other words, I never realized that many in the media already knew about Plame 3 days before Novak's column was even published.

What Mr. Fitzgerald chose not to know is even more troublesome than what he chose to ignore. When Mr. Armitage came forth in October 2003, why did Mr. Fitzgerald not request his appointment calendar from early May, the time the first story appeared in the national press about an unnamed former ambassador's trip to Niger? Mr. Fitzgerald demanded this type of information from White House personnel. Just think, if he had done so of Mr. Armitage, he would have learned prior to indictment about Mr. Woodward's appointment.

By the time he indicted Mr. Libby on Oct. 28, 2005, Mr. Fitzgerald knew two conflicting facts about the classified nature of the Niger trip: since at least early May 2003, Mr. Wilson was discussing his Niger trip with the press (Nicholas Kristof, the New York Times) and claimed in his July 2003 NYT op-ed that his mission was "discreet, but by no means secret." Yet, the indictment states that around June 9, 2003, the CIA sent "classified" documents to the vice president's office discussing "Wilson and his trip to Niger." If the trip was classified for the vice president, why was it declassified for Mr. Wilson? Did Mr. Wilson violate any law by revealing his trip or did Mr. Fitzgerald choose not to know?

Did Mr. Fitzgerald subpoena Ms. Plame? He could have asked her why, if she were truly covert, was she attending an Eastern Shore meeting in May 2003 with Democratic senators. The first journalist to reveal Ms. Plame was "covert" was David Corn, on July 16, 2003, two days after Mr. Novak's column. The latter never wrote, because he did not know and it was not so, that Ms. Plame was covert. However, Mr. Corn claimed Mr. Novak "outed" her as an "undercover CIA officer," querying whether Bush officials blew "the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in . . . national security." Was Mr. Corn subpoenaed? Did Mr. Fitzgerald subpoena Mr. Wilson to attest he had never revealed his wife's employment to anyone? If he had done so, he might have learned Mr. Corn's source.

It is not just Mr. Armitage who should apologize. So should Joe Wilson and Pat Fitzgerald.

It is not just Mr. Armitage who should apologize. So should Joe Wilson and Pat Fitzgerald.

Brilliant! A minor quibble, though: if Joe Wilson and Pat Fitzgerald in fact intentionally hijacked the power of the government to violate various members of the Administration's rights (basically the counterpoint of the same charge they levied), why shouldn't they go to jail?